Subject: [ietf-dkim] is s= really needed?

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 23:30:48 +0100

3.6.1, "s=". Given that new tags can be added to key records
without affecting compliant implementations, I don't see why this
is needed now and suggest deleting it.

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2006 21:48:37 -0400

>is needed now and suggest deleting it.

Agree, but could also be happy leaving it in for some odd extension.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 07:31:11 -0700

> Agree, but could also be happy leaving it in for some odd extension.

I'd say that it's better to leave it in than not because if new records are
added for different purposes (eg s=espresso-over-ip) a compliant DKIM
will not allow those keys use for smtp, whereas if we extended it later
they would.

          Mike

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 15:48:54 +0100

> will not allow those keys use for smtp, whereas if we extended it later

Ah, ok - so the intent is that I don't ignore "s=foo" if I know that
"s=email" exists. I'd read it as saying that verifiers could ignore
that too but I guess your interpretation makes more sense. Maybe adding
a sentence like "Verifiers that expect a particular value for this
tag MUST NOT use records containing some other value."

S.